Search

Most patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are elderly but evidence to guide appropriate treatment decisions for this age group is generally scant. Careful evaluation of the elderly should be undertaken to ensure that treatment appropriate for the stage of the tumour is guided by patient characteristics and not by age. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) remains the preferred option, but briefer tools may be appropriate to select patients for further evaluation. The predicted outcome should be used to guide management decisions together with a reappraisal of polypharmacy. Patient expectations should also be taken into account. Management recommendations are generally similar to those of general guidelines for the NSCLC population, although the risks of surgery and toxicity of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are often increased in the elderly compared with younger patients; therefore, patients should be closely scrutinised and subjected to a CGA to ensure suitability of the planned treatment. If surgery is indicated, then lobectomy is generally the preferred option, although limited resection may be more feasible for some. Radiotherapy with curative intent is an alternative, with stereotactic body radiotherapy the most likely preferred modality. Adjuvant chemotherapy is also an appropriate approach, whereas adjuvant radiotherapy is generally not recommended. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy should be considered for elderly patients with inoperable locally advanced disease and chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease. Efforts should also be made to increase participation of elderly patients with NSCLC in clinical trials, thereby enhancing evidence-based treatment decisions for this majority group. This will require overcoming barriers relating to trial design and to physician and patient awareness and attitudes., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Docetaxel is a widely accepted second-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a risk of myelotoxicity. This study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity profile of two docetaxel regimens in NSCLC patients who had failed first-line non-docetaxel-based chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: A total of 259 patients from 33 Spanish centers were randomized to receive either docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) administered every 3 weeks (3W arm) or docetaxel 36 mg/m(2) given weekly (1W arm) for 6 weeks followed by 2 weeks of rest. The primary end point was 1-year survival; secondary end points were median survival, time to progression, response and toxicity., Results: One-year survival was 27% in the 3W and 22% in the 1W arm. Median time to progression was also similar in the two arms. Median survival was 6.6 months in the 3W arm versus 5.4 months in the 1W arm (P = 0.075). Response rates were 9.3% in the 3W arm and 4.8% in the 1W arm. More patients in the 1W arm experienced mucositis [1W, nine patients (7.2%); 3W, two patients (1.6%); P = 0.032], while febrile neutropenia was significantly higher in the 3W arm [3W, 10 patients (7.8%); 1W, one patient (0.8%); P = 0.010]., Conclusions: Both weekly and 3-weekly docetaxel were effective and well-tolerated, with different toxicity profiles. In general, there was no indication to recommend the weekly schedule. However, the significant lower rate of febrile neutropenia observed in the weekly schedule makes it a good alternative for patients at risk of severe neutropenia.

Background: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin are the most active drugs in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), and survival is improved with patient exposure to all of them. The efficacy and safety of an alternating schedule of continuous-infusion 5-FU with leucovorin (LV) plus oxaliplatin (ie, FOLFOX regimen) or irinotecan (ie, FOLFIRI regimen) was assessed in the first-line setting., Patients and Methods: Seventy-nine patients with previously untreated, unresectable CRC were included. Treatment consisted of 5-FU/LV (de Gramont schedule) plus oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) alternated biweekly with the same 5-FU/LV regimen plus irinotecan (180 mg/m2). Treatment was maintained until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity was noted., Results: Median age was 62 years. Performance status was 0/1 in 91% of patients, 63% had 1 organ involved, and 80% had liver metastases. A median of 6 courses per patient (range, 1-9) and a total of 952 infusions were given. The most frequent grade 3/4 toxic events were neutropenia (32%), diarrhea (26%), and asthenia (7%). Grade 1/2 neurotoxicity was seen in 59% of cases, but no grade 3/4 neurotoxicity was observed. There were no toxic deaths. An objective response rate of 54% (4 complete responses plus 39 partial responses) was attained. Median time to progression and overall survival were 13 months and 18 months, respectively., Conclusion: This alternating schedule is active, with efficacy results similar to those seen with sequential protocols, the advantages of less toxicity, and 100% patient exposure to irinotecan and oxaliplatin.

High-dose epirubicin plus cisplatin was compared with the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Four hundred two previously untreated patients with SCLC were randomized to receive etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 or epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles. Patients were stratified according to treatment center and extent of disease (limited disease, n = 207; extensive disease, n = 195). Patients with limited disease were treated with thoracic radiation therapy after completion of chemotherapy, and those who exhibited a complete response were advised to receive prophylactic cranial irradiation. The primary endpoint was survival, and secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), response, toxicity, and costs. Patient characteristics were generally well balanced in the 2 arms, even though more patients in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm had > 5% weight loss and poor Karnofsky performance index compared with the etoposide/cisplatin arm. One hundred thirty-four patients (66.3%) in the etoposide/cisplatin arm and 126 (63.0%) in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm received all 6 planned cycles of chemotherapy. Response rate, TTP, and survival did not differ significantly between the 2 arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and toxic deaths occurred more frequently in the etoposide/cisplatin arm. Epirubicin/cisplatin showed a similar activity with a slightly lower toxicity profile than the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin. The epirubicin/cisplatin regimen may be recommended in the treatment of SCLC.

Background: Irinotecan (CPT-11) and raltitrexed are active against advanced colorectal cancer (ACC), act through different mechanisms, and have only partially overlapping toxicity profiles. Phase I studies have shown that single-agent full doses of both drugs can be safely combined. The aim of this multicenter study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of the combination in patients with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-refractory ACC., Patients and Methods: Between October 1999 and December 2000, 52 patients (31 males, 21 females) with a median age of 62 years (range 39-75) were included and received CPT-11 (350 mg/m(2) as a 60-min infusion) plus raltitrexed (3 mg/m(2) as a 15-min infusion, 1 h after CPT-11), with courses repeated every 21 days. Objective response was assessed after every three courses, and treatment maintained until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity., Results: A total of 313 cycles were administered, with a median of six cycles per patient (range 1-14). Seven patients (13.5%) achieved a partial response and one a complete response (1.9%), for an overall intention-to-treat response rate of 15.4% (95% confidence interval 6.1% to 27.2%). The incidence of grade 3/4 toxicity was 23.1% for diarrhea, 21.2% for asthenia, 17.3% for neutropenia, 13.4% for emesis and 7.7% for infection. There were no treatment-related deaths. With a median follow-up of 20 months, median survival was 11.9 months and median time to progression was 4.6 months., Conclusions: CPT-11 plus raltitrexed is active in patients with 5-FU-refractory ACC, at the expense of moderate toxicity.

Aims: a) To identify which pretreatment clinical or blood parameters were predictive of patients survival in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in a retrospective analysis. b) To validate three known prognostic indices: Royal Marsden Model (index 1), London Group (index 2) and Manchester Score (index 3)., Patients and Methods: From 1981 to 1993, 341 SCLC patients were treated with chemotherapy with or without surgery or radiotherapy. Univariate and multiple regression analyses of survival were performed and the feasibility of these models was explored, index 1: Karnofsky index, albumin, sodium and alkaline phosphatase; index 2: ECOG performance status (PS), albumin and alanine transaminase; and index 3; lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), disease extent, sodium, Karnofsky index, alkaline phosphatase and bicarbonate., Results: Significant prognostic factors for survival after univariate and multiple regression analysis were: disease extent, PS, creatine kinase, neutrophilia, LDH, hypoalbuminemia, hyperglycemia and bicarbonate. A new prognostic index was performed that included LDH, hypoalbuminemia, neutrophilia, disease extent and PS. It defined three prognostic groups (PG). Median survival and two-year survival for these PG were 12.3, 8 and 3.4 months and 16.5%, 2.3% and 0%, respectively. The following PG were identified after application of the three models proposed: Index 1 identified two PG with 0% and 16.6% two-year survival (P < 0.001); index 2 detected three PG with 0%, 5% and 15.7% two-year survival (P < 0.001) and index 3 detected three PG with 0%, 2.5% and 16.2% two-year survivals, respectively (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: A new prognostic index is proposed allowing identification of three different PG. The feasibility of three known prognostic models was validated and demonstrated. Variables other than disease extent or PS (albumin or LDH) should be taken into account in designing future clinical trials.